Monday, September 21, 2009

Judge Jones at Southern Methodist University

This week federal Judge John Jones will be speaking at Southern Methodist University's special program on the teaching of evolution in our public schools. Four years ago Jones ruled that the Dover, Pennsylvania school district must not question evolution in its science classes. That decision earned the Lutheran a sort of celebrity status. He was featured on the cover of Time magazine, made its list of the 100 Most Influential People, and seems to be on a never ending speaking tour. There is only one problem: the Dover decision is packed with logical fallacies.

Perhaps the most important problem underlying the decision was that Judge Jones deemed himself capable of defining and distinguishing science, and in doing so got it all mixed up. For centuries philosophers have not been able to explain just what it is about science that makes it science. And it is not for lack of trying. The problem even has its own name: The Demarkation Problem.

But Jones, who evidences no significant knowledge of the philosophy of science, was only too happy to lay down the law for the people of Dover. His ruling is rich source material for a course on flawed legal decisions. For example, evolutionary thought is based on religious premises that mandate a strictly naturalistic origins, but according to Jones evolution is just good scientific research. He simply denied the mountain of religious content in evolutionary thought.

Of course this story is not really about Judge Jones. After all he is just the messenger. Jones' denialism is simply a reflection of evolution's denialism. Religion drives science and it matters.

10 comments:

Mr Hunter, I would very much like to know whether you think religion drives your science. I mean you are associated with a religious anti-evolution 'think tank' whose stated goals are ideological opposition to what they regard to be 'scientific materialism' (damn that atheistic atomic theory and the godless periodic table!). Do you think that religion drives the science of the people at AIG and ICR? As your goals are remarkably similar, and so are a lot of your arguments.

That naturalism is religion is so patently obvious. Although we all agree that phenomena all respond according to law, it is nothing more than a religious assertion that the law is natural and unintelligent. We can not test or observe whether the law is natural or it finds its origin and existence in the mind of God.

So what religion is driving the science of theists who accept evolution? Take someone such as Steve Matheson, he has an excellent blog - Quintessence of Dust - where he states in no uncertain terms his support of evolution - http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2007/08/introducing-me-on-common-descent-and.html - (he's an NCSE Steve), and he's as big a critic of anti-evolution organisations as anyone;http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2007/12/talking-trash-about-junk-dna.htmlhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/02/talking-trash-about-junk-dna-lies-about.htmlhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/01/talking-trash-about-junk-dna-lies-about.htmlhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/02/talking-trash-about-junk-dna-lies-about_21.html

What exactly is driving his science? How can you claim to be the only impartial observer when so many qualified scientists who actually work with the evidence on a daily basis disagree so strongly?

"So what religion is driving the science of theists who accept evolution?"

Well that's a long story in the history of thought. There are more than a dozen different metaphysical threads in evolutionary thought that mandate evolution. You can see www.DarwinsPredictions.com, as well as books such as *Science's Blind Spot*.

"Take someone such as Steve Matheson, he has an excellent blog - Quintessence of Dust - where he states in no uncertain terms his support of evolution"

All kinds of people "support" evolution for all kinds of reasons (social, financial, etc). They are not the reason why evolution is a religious theory. It is a religious theory because the consensus of leading evolutionists is that it is a fact, and their reasoning entails metaphysical premises. Without those premises it is not possible to show evolution to be a fact (not even close).

"How can you claim to be the only impartial observer when so many qualified scientists who actually work with the evidence on a daily basis disagree so strongly?"

Most life scientists do not "work with the evidence" any more than astronomers work with the evidence for geocentrism. In fact, most life science research owes nothing to evolution.

I can claim to be impartial because I do not hold religious beliefs that mandate evolution be true or false. I'm not saying it has no implications--of course it does. But I don't have rigid metaphysical commitments (eg, god would never create mosquitos) as do evolutionists.

Cornelius: "No, my religion does not drive my science. My religion (unlike the metaphysics underlying evolution) does not dictate the form of the answer, so I am free to evaluate the evidence scientifically."

OK. Let me see then - did your acceptance or belief in ID come before or after your conversion to born-again Christianity? And how about the other 99% of ID proponents who all just happen to be born-again Christians? Bizarre coincidence? I suspect your answer will be that being born-again makes you a better scientist right?

What about answering the question Dr. H? What came first - your faith in God or your belief in ID? And why are so many (the large majority in fact) of ID proponents born-again Christians? Isn't it reasonable to assume that there may in fact be a correlation here? Or is it just an odd coincidence?

Do you really think that observers here really accept that you practice some form of 'pure science' that isn't somehow influenced by you religious belief?

"What about answering the question Dr. H? What came first - your faith in God or your belief in ID?"

I was a Christian-evolutionist (before there was an "ID"). I had no ax to grind with evolution except that its claims did not seem to square with science.

"Do you really think that observers here really accept that you practice some form of 'pure science' that isn't somehow influenced by you religious belief?"

Do I use religious arguments? No, that would be the evolutionists. Amazing -- evolutionists ignore the religious arguments that are in plain sight for all to see, and instead divine hidden motives where there are none. If evolutionists are so opposed to religion driving science, then why don't they attack the overwhelming abundance of such influence in their own evolutionary theory?

The bottom line is that evolutionists are not genuinely opposed to religion influencing science. Quite the opposite, they actively promote it. Then they blame skeptics for precisely what they themselves are doing.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/